Ben C Smith

Did they regularly point out the social status of entire crowds? If it should turn out that they did not, what does this do to this particular argument, IYO?

Ben.

Amaleq13

:banghead:

Your summary doesn't appear to me to resemble the actual contents of Mark but, instead, some sort of harmonization of all four. IOW, you picked the wrong joke so we shouldn't be surprised that the punch line doesn't fit.

Try something closer to what Mark actually describes:
A wandering prophet is chosen by God at his baptism to be God's favored Son which involved being filled with the Holy Spirit. This Spirit stayed with him, allowing him miraculous powers, etc., right up to the point of his death where it left him.

Problem solved as far as Mark is concerned.

driver8

Never quoted myself before.

Let's see who's closer, based on the english translation:

Mark.1
[1] The beginning of the gospel of Jesus Christ, the Son of God.

Mark.1
[11] and a voice came from heaven, "Thou art my beloved Son; with thee I am well pleased."

That didn't take long. He's son of god.

Mark.1
[14] Now after John was arrested, Jesus came into Galilee, preaching the gospel of God,
[15] and saying, "The time is fulfilled, and the kingdom of God is at hand; repent, and believe in the gospel."

Seems we can say he's revealed his divinity by now.

Mark.8
[31] And he began to teach them that the Son of man must suffer many things, and be rejected by the elders and the chief priests and the scribes, and be killed, and after three days rise again.

In case you missed the first one:
Mark.9
[31] for he was teaching his disciples, saying to them, "The Son of man will be delivered into the hands of men, and they will kill him; and when he is killed, after three days he will rise."

So, we know how he will be betrayed, and of course he knows.

Mark.10
[45] For the Son of man also came not to be served but to serve, and to give his life as a ransom for many."

That was his purpose, so he knows why he will be betrayed.

Mark.14
[48] And Jesus said to them, "Have you come out as against a robber, with swords and clubs to capture me?
[49] Day after day I was with you in the temple teaching, and you did not seize me. But let the scriptures be fulfilled."

There's the willful submission.

Mark.15
[34] And at the ninth hour Jesus cried with a loud voice, "E'lo-i, E'lo-i, la'ma sabach-tha'ni?" which means, "My God, my God, why hast thou forsaken me?"

There's the curious finish.

Looks like I wasn't far off.

You suggested there was a wandering prophet who received baptism and that provided the holy spirit and subsequent miracles.

Let's see:

Mark.1
[1] The beginning of the gospel of Jesus Christ, the Son of God.
[2] As it is written in Isaiah the prophet, "Behold, I send my messenger before thy face, who shall prepare thy way;
[3] the voice of one crying in the wilderness: Prepare the way of the Lord, make his paths straight -- "
[4] John the baptizer appeared in the wilderness, preaching a baptism of repentance for the forgiveness of sins.
[5] And there went out to him all the country of Judea, and all the people of Jerusalem; and they were baptized by him in the river Jordan, confessing their sins.
[6] Now John was clothed with camel's hair, and had a leather girdle around his waist, and ate locusts and wild honey.
[7] And he preached, saying, "After me comes he who is mightier than I, the thong of whose sandals I am not worthy to stoop down and untie.
[8] I have baptized you with water; but he will baptize you with the Holy Spirit."
[9] In those days Jesus came from Nazareth of Galilee and was baptized by John in the Jordan.
[10] And when he came up out of the water, immediately he saw the heavens opened and the Spirit descending upon him like a dove;
[11] and a voice came from heaven, "Thou art my beloved Son; with thee I am well pleased."

It seems that there was a wandering prophet, but it wasn't Jesus. Isaiah was the prophet, and John the Baptist was the wanderer. Nothing here suggests that anything is known of Jesus prior to his baptism, so perhaps you have harmonized this idea from other sources. You could easily conclude that Jesus received the holy spirit at this point in time, but it is irrelevant to the previous statements. There is no reason to conclude Jesus is a "favored" son or even consider that he has other sons, nor is there reason to conclude that god has chosen Jesus only at this point in time, though it would not be unreasonable, for he refers to him as his beloved son. Again, I would conclude this introduction is just another literary device, but that's beside the point, which is: The gospel of Mark works at cross purposes, and my contention that the punch line does not fit the joke remains.

driver8

I like that. But, the target does exist, and just because there are those who profess that it does. And what is the genuine reading? There is none. That is a clue.

Malachi151

"The Son of God" is a later addition, its not in the earliest texts.

No Robots

But what if there is? Seek and ye shall find.

Amaleq13

Yes, I said that.

There is nothing in either passage that even hints Jesus was divine. :huh:

Does he indicate he knows he will feel forsaken by God? No.

You keep reading "betrayal" where there is nothing but "sacrifice". None of the passages you identify with betrayal have anything to do with Judas.

Only curious if you miss the point I was making about the baptism scene. What indications do you have that Jesus was anything special prior to that scene?

Yes, that's what the story describes.

Jesus was a wandering prophet after his baptism. I can see how someone unfamiliar with the actual story might interpret my sentence the way you have (a "had" before "received", perhaps) but not otherwise. :huh:

Yes, now don't lose this point focusing on an irrelevancy.

Yes, since that is what 1:10 says.

"And there came a voice from heaven, saying, Thou art my beloved Son, in whom I am well pleased." Nope, no indication of favor there.

How do we know how many Sons God has?

I see. So you think God was making this announcement on a regular basis, do you? He had mentioned it earlier while Jesus was eating breakfast but thought he needed a little reminder?

No, you just don't understand the joke because your conception of Jesus doesn't depend solely on Mark.

driver8

What is an on-line english language source of these "earliest texts," or this one specifically? Thanks for your response in advance. Does your statement apply also to Mark.1[11] or just the first passage?

driver8

I don't like responding line at a time because it is too tedious on the writer and reader, so I'll respond in paragraph form.

As for divinity, it seems to me disengenuous to try to insinuate that Mark is not portraying Jesus as divine. If you want to suggest that Jesus himself does not claim divinity (as related by Mark), well that is a totally different claim. Perhaps that is worth its own discussion elsewhere. If you're trying to extract a kernal of historicity by excluding claims of divinity, you're going to have to make an assumption that the events and statements are reliably accurate and have been massaged to appear to demonstrate divinity. Is that your perspective? Such a selective perspective may be a correct one, but it is not what the current text portrays, and it leaves you standing on shaky ground trying to choose what is defensible. My critique was based on "Mark's" portrayal, not what I think is defensible or really happened. I don't know that any of it is defensible. Who witnessed and recorded these sayings?

I simply selected the first passage attributed to Jesus that to me made that portrayal, but in and of itself it is not a direct assertion. If it comes down to semantics, one can say that "the son of god", the "lord", and any other number of assertions short of "i am god" do not have to mean divinity. That seems strained. There are too many instances of the supernatural and god's message and plan, all meant to confer divinity, to just arbritrarily ignore. One is left with next to nothing going down this path.

Let's parse more words shall we. Why don't we start with "betrayal," "forsaken" and "sacrifice."

Mark.14
[20] He said to them, "It is one of the twelve, one who is dipping bread into the dish with me.
[21] For the Son of man goes as it is written of him, but woe to that man by whom the Son of man is betrayed! It would have been better for that man if he had not been born."

Maybe this passage relates to Judas, who I didn't bring up in the first place. My only point was that Mark's Jesus knows what will happen to him and why. Mark is quite clear. What is ironic is that Jesus uses the word betray in the first place. On the one hand he claims to have a purpose (Mark.10
[45] For the Son of man also came not to be served but to serve, and to give his life as a ransom for many."), and on the other he says that fulfilling that purpose, i.e. sacrifice, constitutes betrayal. That looks like conflict to me.

I did not say he knows he will be "forsaken," but that he understood his purpose (Mark.10[45] above) and willfully accepted it (Mark.14[49]). This insinuates just the opposite of being forsaken. He has a mission and he completes it. He is not "forsaken" until the end. Again, that's a conflict.

You can pick and choose what you think is "defensible" to reconcile this, but when you do you do so because there is a conflict. Regardless if man or god, he has "come to give his life as a ransom." Doing so fulfills his purpose. How is this forsaken?

As for the baptism and the wandering prophet bit, there is no argument that he is a wandering prophet as portrayed after the baptism. I think it selective reading on your part though to think that Jesus was an ordinary man upon whom god conferred something special at that point in time.

[10] And when he came up out of the water, immediately he saw the heavens opened and the Spirit descending upon him like a dove;
[11] and a voice came from heaven, "Thou art my beloved Son; with thee I am well pleased."

Your synopsis:
Its not there, and what does it resolve at any rate? Are you trying to avoid the virgin birth? You're still claiming a god and miracles. The spirit descends upon him, not into him. You are my son, not I make you my son, not you are my favored son. For your reading of this to work you have to assume that (1) this was a real event that was somehow faithfully captured, and (2) this event and others were later manipulated (how and by whom?) into appearing to represent something else.

The question that your reading does resolve is why does Jesus not do anything notable before this baptism. But, of course there is more than one answer to that question. As for why (your question) I might think Jesus was (portrayed as) anything special before the baptism, how about:

[3] the voice of one crying in the wilderness: Prepare the way of the Lord, make his paths straight -- "
[7] And he preached, saying, "After me comes he who is mightier than I, the thong of whose sandals I am not worthy to stoop down and untie.
[8] I have baptized you with water; but he will baptize you with the Holy Spirit."

as an introduction. Is that the way you are introduced at parties?

You've really got to put a lot of effort into making this Jesus appear like nothing more than a wandering prophet who was in the right place at the right time.

Contrary to your repeated assertion, everything I have stated in this thread relies solely upon Mark as it is currently written, and Mark tells a conflicted story that can only be reconciled by throwing something out (perhaps that which "Mark" did not write). That is all I have said from the beginning.

Mythra

Mark.1
[11] and a voice came from heaven, "Thou art my beloved Son; with thee I am well pleased." this day I have begotten thee".

If I'm not mistaken, this is one of the alterations of the text cited by Ehrman as coming from the protoorthodox group and being theologically motivated (antiadoptionistic)